Team Middle – Week 3: The Intervention Jessica Broadwater, Anthony Clancy, Malaika Defoe, Kenny Okine Summary The students come to the school unprepared for the material they are expected to cover. This lack of preparation is grounded in special learning needs and barriers to instruction common to many of the students who are placed in Laurel Hall. Many of the students have been diagnosed with psychological disorders and/or specific learning disabilities. Additionally, many of the students come from disadvantaged groups within the larger community. They often lack material resources and are disproportionately representative of families where parents have little formal education. The school has a strong therapeutic component but should focus on remediation and improving test scores at all grade levels for the majority of the students. Root Analysis Why are students not performing well on the MSAs in Reading and Math? They aren't performing well because they are not familiar with the testing format and expectations. Why? The classroom teacher does not use formal assessment formats (selected response/brief constructed response). Why? The teacher does not have the time nor the resources to create such assessments based on the VSC because he is teaching multiple grade levels. New Question – How can the students demonstrate mastery of the curriculum if there are multiple grade levels taught in the classroom? Why are there multiple grade levels in a classroom? Is it based on skill/ability level or is it because of enrollment numbers and the student/staff ratio? The teacher is not administering regular standards-based assessments to measure curriculum mastery at each grade level. Why? The teacher is having trouble following the curriculum based on the scope and sequence for each grade level. Why? A majority of the students are functioning below grade level and require remediation and academic intervention in order to access grade level material that is on the standardized test. The Intervention Laurel Hall will develop and implement curriculum benchmarks quarterly in order to track student progress, organize remediation, implement research based interventions and instructional "best practices" in order to increase the extremely low test scores on math and reading MSA, which is the fundamental problem that will be addressed by the intervention. The students lack the skills and/or knowledge to perform on the MSAs. Students are performing below grade level and as a result, are scoring in the basic range on standardized testing. The test data shows that improvement is needed in teaching and learning. Presently, 53% of weekly instructional time is devoted to AYP courses (language arts and math). This time does not account for remediation, intervention or regular benchmark testing. Implementation of the Intervention We will establish where students are currently functioning relative to the content tested in reading and math MSAs. Once this is established we will create bench-marked curriculum to differentiate instruction and offer even more personalized interventions to remediate specific skill deficits in these areas. Progress meeting the benchmarks within the curriculum would be measured through a program of formative assessment given regularly. The information from this program of assessment will inform the pacing and methods of instruction and presence or absence of interventions. The adoption of a regular, formal benchmark calendar also affords school staff the opportunity to reward and reinforce student effort and growth thereby increasing student "buy-in". This intervention will be implemented by school administration with the help of a curriculum specialist who would develop the assessments. Administrators and teachers implement standardized benchmarks and "collaborate on benchmark data analysis, monitor progress, and act on needed changes" (MSDE 1997-2009). Administration will have to identify who and how the benchmarks will be delivered considering the current staff and ability to do it effectively. All teachers/staff should have input and be part of the overall implementation especially if it affects the master schedule. Additionally, curriculum specialists are needed to write the assessments and time is needed to score and analyze results. It will be critical to budget time and resources for a significant expansion of professional development activities, within the school, to support the program of intervention and ultimately achieve the school's vision. Generic assessments, or an already common assessment battery may need to be accessed/ purchased. Only other funding to consider would maybe include a stipend if teachers end up doing an after-school type offering; transportation home would also need to be considered, then. Additional staff members might be required to institute pull-out programs for students needing remediation best provided in an alternative setting. Implementing regular standardized benchmarks takes time away from instruction. The results of benchmark testing would indicate that certain students need remediation and interventions which can probably be done through flexible grouping (Valentino 2000). However, if it seems that something more "aggressive" than flexible groupings are required to make the substantial single year gains in reading and math called for by our instructional goal. This more aggressive program will necessitate alterations to the schedules for instruction and professional activities. We will need to allow time early in the year for changes in instructional schedules to allow for initial testing to identify present levels of academic performance relative to the bench-marked curriculum and MSAs. Additionally, allowances must be made for the impact of skill remediation on the delivery of content within the tested curriculum. The instructional schedule will be impacted by both the assessment schedule and the processes changes required for focused programs of remediation. Professional activities' schedules will be impacted by increased time spent in professional development activities. After initial benchmark data has been analyzed by the administration and the teachers, remediation and interventions will take place. At that time, changes to the weekly schedule may be in order. The weekly schedule provides some flexibility to increase math and ELA time. All of the students have special needs. This strategy aims to guide teaching and correct student errors prior to taking statewide assessments. The strategy also has the added bonus of exposing students to formal testing situations which eases anxiety and reinforces a climate of achievement. (Parrish and Stodden. 2009). The students will have opportunities to become more confident in the two subject areas and hopefully feel more comfortable with the test-taking process. Both the elementary and middle school classroom teachers need to have common planning time to arrange flexible groupings, prepare standard based lessons and examine student work to tailor instruction Jess (Murphy 2001). Classroom teachers, testing specialists, remediation specialists, administrators should all have time to plan as well as review assessment data together. Success will be measured based on the benchmark results as well as an analysis of the expected increase in MSA scores across all grade levels.
Team Middle – Week 3: The Intervention
Jessica Broadwater, Anthony Clancy, Malaika Defoe, Kenny Okine
Summary
The students come to the school unprepared for the material they are expected to cover. This lack of preparation is grounded in special learning needs and barriers to instruction common to many of the students who are placed in Laurel Hall. Many of the students have been diagnosed with psychological disorders and/or specific learning disabilities. Additionally, many of the students come from disadvantaged groups within the larger community. They often lack material resources and are disproportionately representative of families where parents have little formal education. The school has a strong therapeutic component but should focus on remediation and improving test scores at all grade levels for the majority of the students.
Root Analysis
Why are students not performing well on the MSAs in Reading and Math?
They aren't performing well because they are not familiar with the testing format and expectations. Why?
The classroom teacher does not use formal assessment formats (selected response/brief constructed response). Why?
The teacher does not have the time nor the resources to create such assessments based on the VSC because he is teaching multiple grade levels.
New Question –
How can the students demonstrate mastery of the curriculum if there are multiple grade levels taught in the classroom?
Why are there multiple grade levels in a classroom? Is it based on skill/ability level or is it because of enrollment numbers and the student/staff ratio?
The teacher is not administering regular standards-based assessments to measure curriculum mastery at each grade level. Why?
The teacher is having trouble following the curriculum based on the scope and sequence for each grade level. Why?
A majority of the students are functioning below grade level and require remediation and academic intervention in order to access grade level material that is on the standardized test.
The Intervention
Laurel Hall will develop and implement curriculum benchmarks quarterly in order to track student progress, organize remediation, implement research based interventions and instructional "best practices" in order to increase the extremely low test scores on math and reading MSA, which is the fundamental problem that will be addressed by the intervention. The students lack the skills and/or knowledge to perform on the MSAs. Students are performing below grade level and as a result, are scoring in the basic range on standardized testing. The test data shows that improvement is needed in teaching and learning. Presently, 53% of weekly instructional time is devoted to AYP courses (language arts and math). This time does not account for remediation, intervention or regular benchmark testing.
Implementation of the Intervention
We will establish where students are currently functioning relative to the content tested in reading and math MSAs. Once this is established we will create bench-marked curriculum to differentiate instruction and offer even more personalized interventions to remediate specific skill deficits in these areas. Progress meeting the benchmarks within the curriculum would be measured through a program of formative assessment given regularly. The information from this program of assessment will inform the pacing and methods of instruction and presence or absence of interventions. The adoption of a regular, formal benchmark calendar also affords school staff the opportunity to reward and reinforce student effort and growth thereby increasing student "buy-in".
This intervention will be implemented by school administration with the help of a curriculum specialist who would develop the assessments. Administrators and teachers implement standardized benchmarks and "collaborate on benchmark data analysis, monitor progress, and act on needed changes" (MSDE 1997-2009). Administration will have to identify who and how the benchmarks will be delivered considering the current staff and ability to do it effectively. All teachers/staff should have input and be part of the overall implementation especially if it affects the master schedule. Additionally, curriculum specialists are needed to write the assessments and time is needed to score and analyze results.
It will be critical to budget time and resources for a significant expansion of professional development activities, within the school, to support the program of intervention and ultimately achieve the school's vision. Generic assessments, or an already common assessment battery may need to be accessed/ purchased. Only other funding to consider would maybe include a stipend if teachers end up doing an after-school type offering; transportation home would also need to be considered, then. Additional staff members might be required to institute pull-out programs for students needing remediation best provided in an alternative setting.
Implementing regular standardized benchmarks takes time away from instruction. The results of benchmark testing would indicate that certain students need remediation and interventions which can probably be done through flexible grouping (Valentino 2000). However, if it seems that something more "aggressive" than flexible groupings are required to make the substantial single year gains in reading and math called for by our instructional goal. This more aggressive program will necessitate alterations to the schedules for instruction and professional activities.
We will need to allow time early in the year for changes in instructional schedules to allow for initial testing to identify present levels of academic performance relative to the bench-marked curriculum and MSAs. Additionally, allowances must be made for the impact of skill remediation on the delivery of content within the tested curriculum. The instructional schedule will be impacted by both the assessment schedule and the processes changes required for focused programs of remediation. Professional activities' schedules will be impacted by increased time spent in professional development activities. After initial benchmark data has been analyzed by the administration and the teachers, remediation and interventions will take place. At that time, changes to the weekly schedule may be in order. The weekly schedule provides some flexibility to increase math and ELA time.
All of the students have special needs. This strategy aims to guide teaching and correct student errors prior to taking statewide assessments. The strategy also has the added bonus of exposing students to formal testing situations which eases anxiety and reinforces a climate of achievement. (Parrish and Stodden. 2009). The students will have opportunities to become more confident in the two subject areas and hopefully feel more comfortable with the test-taking process.
Both the elementary and middle school classroom teachers need to have common planning time to arrange flexible groupings, prepare standard based lessons and examine student work to tailor instruction Jess (Murphy 2001). Classroom teachers, testing specialists, remediation specialists, administrators should all have time to plan as well as review assessment data together. Success will be measured based on the benchmark results as well as an analysis of the expected increase in MSA scores across all grade levels.